Management Journals and the Celebrity Researcher Effect on Tiers

Management Journals and the Celebrity Researcher Effect on Tiers

Reginald L. Bell Prairie View A & M University

I used two-way analysis of variance, with a 4 x 3 factorial design, to compare the means of 420 articles published in 21 reputable management journals—20 articles per journal. The independent variables were a corroborated list of 1st, 2nd, 3rd, and 4th tier management journals and three publication periods were 1989 and before, 1990 to 1999 and 2000 and after. The dependent variable was the 617,299 citations of articles found in a Google Scholar citations search. I ascertained means differed on the main effects of tier (p< .001) and publication period (p< .05). The measure of the magnitude of decreases in citations among journal tiers did not differ across the three publication periods, with a non-significant interaction effect of p = .794. Super-cited articles published in 1st tier management journals give them a competitive advantage over lower tier journals when journals are ranked by counting citations. This celebrity researcher effect, however, is negated over time. INTRODUCTION

In an early study that solicited expert opinion, Durand (1974, p. 580) ranked the Administrative Science Quarterly, Management Science, The Harvard Business Review, The Academy of Management Journal, and Journal of Business as 1st, 2nd, 3rd, 4th and 5th respectively, in a study where journals were “ranked as influential to management theory and management practice by academic respondents.” Comparing journals by citation counts and ranking them is not a new approach (Baird & Oppenheim, 1994; Oppenheim, 1996). Journal rankings and journal citations studies continue to intrigue faculties at the various schools of business around the globe. And journals continue to publish the results of these studies. Opinions of experts are important indicators of journal rankings, internationally too (Caligiuri, 1999; DuBois, & Reeb, 2000; Mingers & Harzig, 2007; Thongpapanl, 2012). Leung (2007) showed through a citation analysis that East Asian researchers are following the trend of Western researchers rather than establishing their own path. Researchers in the specialty fields of management, such as strategic management, operations management, technology and innovation management and even management accounting have joined in on the perpetual search (or continual re-affirmation) for the top journals in their fields.

For example, researchers have ranked strategic management journals based on the articles that are cited by other journals over a period between 1991 to 2006, looking for the per article impact of an article to affirm a journal’s rank among journals (Azar & Brock, 2008). Researchers have examined 186 articles published in a single journal, The Journal of Management Accounting Research, from 1989 to 2008, and discovered there is a group of “most-cited authors” in that journal (Lindquist & Smith, 2009). Chong and Bell (2012) found differences in the relative frequency of published articles, whereby, highly regarded accounting journals favored the articles of Carnegie classified research extensive and foreign institutions

44 Journal of Leadership, Accountability and Ethics vol. 10(5) 2013

over the Carnegie classified master level and liberal arts schools. Another group of researchers used three different methods: the overall score, the normalized method, and the weighted-score method and ascertained that six innovation and technology management journals continue to appear as the top journals (Cheng, Kumar, Motwani, Reisman, Madan, & Manu, 1999). Another study found that based on total citations, citations per article, and citations per words published, for the period between 1992 and1994, the most important operations management journals were Management Science, Decisions Sciences and Operations Research (Vokurka, 1996). There is a variety of research methods on citations analysis of management journals.

Podsakoff, Mackenzie, Bachrach, and Podsakoff (2005) found seven journals accounted for 61 percent of the citations of 28 leading business journals over two decades, and in the past 20 years the most influential journals were the Academy of Management Journal, the Academy of Management Review, and the Strategic Management Journal. Li and Parker (2013) used Thomson Reuters’ Journal Citation Reports database to derive three basic relationships that influence theory building: the numbers of articles citing a journal, articles cited by a journal, and a journal’s self-citation rate. Stochastic models have been used to show the obsolescence and decline in the rate of citations of an article over time (Mingers & Burrell, 2006). Raut, Sahu, and Ganguly (2008) found the top ranked journals in strategic management were Strategic Management Journal, Academy of Management Journal and Administrative Science Quarterly, which combined represented 32% of literature coverage; moreover, authors they examined cited journals more frequently than books, magazines, newspapers, and other information sources. The key driver of citations in management journals is the journal itself, and other factors are length of the paper, the number of references, number of coauthors, Carnegie Classification and the status of the first author’s institution (Bell, 2010; Bell & Chong, 2010; Mingers & Xu, 2010).

The majority of citations in management journals continue to be concentrated with a handful of journals; Geary, Marriott, and Liz (2004) found that 126 journals out of 562 journals accounted for 50% of the total citations of all 562 journals they examined. Linton and Thongpapanl (2004) found that based on ranking journals by the number of citations the top 10 technology and innovation management journals out of 50 were Journal of Product Innovation Management, Research Policy, Research-Technology Management, Harvard Business Review, Strategic Management Journal, Management Science, Administrative Science Quarterly, R&D Management, IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management, and Academy of Management Review. Bell (2012, p. 29) referred to any article that has been cited more than 2,429 times, that spawns a generation of research, as a “super-cited” article. A super-cited article can create citations momentum for the journal in which it is published, taking on a life of its own. Authors of such papers become celebrity researchers. A paper that is cited often will likely be cited even more often in the literature (Baird & Oppenheim, 1994; Oppenheim, 1996).

Harris (2008) in an article entitled “Ranking the Management Journals” developed a list of journals that would aid researchers in the selection of a management journal appropriate for publishing their research results. Harris found results consistent with other researchers’ findings in terms of deciding what management journals are top tier management journals. Yuyuenyongwatana and Carraher (2008) also found a consensus in 50 management journals they ranked by means. They also argue that institutions are reasonable in using such rankings as a basis for evaluating the quality of a faculty member’s research. Conversely, the notion of journal quality is not without controversy. Journal Quality, the Elusive Concept

Empirical research has shown evidence there is bias in the relative frequency of Carnegie classified research extensive institutions over lesser institutions being published in the top business journals (Bell, 2010; Bell & Chong, 2010). Editors’ perceptions of the submitting author’s institution, editorial gate keeping, and other types of bias can determine who gets published in what types of journals. Brand named institutions crowd out other institutions; a lesser known researcher from a lesser known institution submitting his or her work to a highly regarded journal will be lucky to have it read by a staff editor, and the manuscript might never be sent out for peer review (Macdoanld & Kam, 2008).

Journal of Leadership, Accountability and Ethics vol. 10(5) 2013 45

It is hard to construe a journal’s true quality from the hodgepodge of published research findings that deal specifically with journal quality question. A journal, when scientifically tested, is not a proxy for the quality of its articles and articles are not a proxy for the quality of the journal in which they are published (Chow, Haddad, Singh & Wu, 2007; Smith, 2004). Mediocre research is often granted the endorsement of high visibility when published in top journals but might also impede the development of knowledge (Starbuck, 2005). Journal quality is still a vague and elusive concept.

Most arguments of journal quality are circular; moreover, the indicator of quality has become the target for performance. In other words, the belief in quality of a journal has negated its being substantiated with objective evidence needed for universal acceptance of a “journal quality” definition. The notion of management journal quality appears to benefit members of the club merely because they are club members. Macdonald and Kam (2008, p. 596) wrote the following:

Academics are notoriously poor at identifying quality journals not known to be quality journals. They tend to be very familiar with very few journals, and very ignorant of the vast majority…Once a journal is on one list of quality journals, it is fairly likely to appear on other lists of quality journals. It is a quality journal because it is on a list of quality journals. Conversely, journals not on the lists are likely to remain excluded…One characteristic of quality journals in Management Studies is that authors from top business schools publish in them, but then, which are top business schools is often determined by publication in quality journals.

Therefore, I am not arguing in this study that just because a management journal has a huge number of citations that this in turn is an indicator of that journal’s quality. Top journals, on the other hand, do have influence when people cite the articles they publish. Bell (2012, p. 26) found a list of 61 management journals, listed by tiers, posted on the Bauer College of Business website:

Scholars at the University of Houston’s Bauer College of Business (a U.S. News & World Report “Top 50” Business School) created a list of 61 management journals in 2009 and ranked them by tiers from 1 to 4, with 1 being highest…The Bauer list adheres to the consensus of what management professors perceive to be top management journals that has been substantiated in the literature.

Research Purpose

Albeit the quality argument is still unresolved, there is some inconsistency in the methods used to determine a management journals’ influence because most studies focus on a single sub area (Podsakoff, Mackenzie, Bachrach, & Podsakoff, 2005). Nonetheless, the literature suggests that the more an article is cited the greater is its influence on theory building (Li & Parker, 2013); therefore, 1st and 2nd tier management journals should be more influential in knowledge development than 3rd and 4th tier management journals and time should not negate this influence. Moreover, since super-cited articles have a momentum producing characteristic, the publication period should not diminish the established management journal hierarchy. Some journals decline in popularity while top journals maintain or even accelerate in popularity (Johnson, & Podsakoff, 1994). The journals believed to be most influential should produce heavily cited articles consistently. That is to say, regardless of the publication period, citations for top tier journals should be significantly higher than those from lower tier journals. The magnitude of the interaction effect should be significant. Even if citations for all tiers increase or decrease, 1st tier journals should increase significantly more than 2nd , 3rd, and 4th tiers or decrease significantly less than 2nd , 3rd, and 4th tiers.

My research purpose is to test three hypotheses related to pre-established lists of management journal tiers corroborated in the literature and the citations of articles published in those journals to ascertain if differences exist over time. My purpose is furthered by conducting this study to test whether a list of 21management journals corroborated to be highly regarded management journals differ by tier regarding


citations (main effect), whether there is a difference in publication periods regarding citations (main effect), and if the magnitude of citations increases or decreases across publication periods is different for 1st, 2nd, 3rd and 4th tier journals (the interaction effect). METHODOLOGY

Despite the mixture of meaning on recent researchers’ attempts to demonstrate an acceptable framework for what exactly is management journal “quality,” institutions continue to create lists of management journals they deem influential. Many of these lists use citations as the main criterion, and based on the magnitudes of citations increases journals produce over time journal hierarchies are determined. The same journals seem to keep showing up on lists of top management journals decade after decade. Citations are construed as a journal’s influence on theory building (Tahai & Meyer, 1999). It is hard to argue against citations influencing the work researchers do. Journal articles I cited in this paper, for example, certainly influenced my data collection methods as well as how I interpreted my results, especially using Google Scholar as a resource for evaluating management journals’ impact (Bell, 2012; Harzing, & van der Wal, 2009). Table 1 illustrates two management journal lists from two independent studies, both published in 2008, where authors’ ranked journals by means or classified them into categories of “A” “B” or “C” based on expert opinion and citations counts.

TABLE 1

TWO INDEPENDENT LISTS OF TOP MANAGEMENT JOURNALS

Yuyuenyongwatana, R. P., & Carraher, S. M. (2008, p. 4) 50 Management journals they ranked by means

Harris, C. (2008) Management journals she ranked as A, B, or C

1. Academy of Management Journal Management Journals Ranked ‘A’ 2. Journal of Applied Psychology Academy of Management Journal* 3. Academy of Management Review Academy of Management Review* 4. Strategic Management Journal Administrative Science Quarterly* 5. Management Science Sloan Management Review 6. Journal of International Business Studies Strategic Management Journal* 7. Journal of Management Management Journals Ranked ‘B’ 8. Administrative Science Quarterly Academy of Management Perspectives/Executive* 9. Organization Science British Journal of Industrial Relations 10. International Journal of Family Business British Journal of Management 11. Case Research Journal California Management Review* 12. Journal of Business Strategies Human Resource Management (US) 13. AOM Learning & Education IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management 14. Journal of Management History Industrial & Labor Relations Review 15. AOM Perspectives International Journal of Human Resource Management 16. Journal of Management Studies Journal of Human Resources 17. Public Administration Quarterly Journal of Management* 18. California Management Review Journal of Management Inquiry 19. International Journal of Sustainable Strategic

Management Journal of Management Studies*

20. Personnel Review Journal of Organizational Behavior 21. Journal of International Entrepreneurship Leadership Quarterly 22. International Journal of Production Research Management Learning 23. International Journal of Information Technology and

Management Management Journals Ranked ‘C’

24. Journal of International Business and Entrepreneurship European Journal of Industrial Relations 25. Journal of Technology Management in China International Journal of Management Reviews 26. Organizational Dynamics International Review of Administrative Sciences 27. Management Decision Journal of Leisure Research 28. International Journal of Technological Innovation and

Entrepreneurship Personnel Review*

29. Baltic Journal of Management Research in Organizational Behavior


30. International Journal of Entrepreneurship Research in Personnel & Human Resource Management 31. Journal of Managerial Issues 32. Journal of Strategic Information Systems 33. Organization Studies 34. Cornell Hotel and Restaurant Administration Quarterly 35. Journal of International Business and Enterprise

Development

36. Personnel 37. Business Horizons 38. International Journal of Entrepreneurship Development,

Education & Training

39. Journal of Asia Entrepreneurship and Sustainability 40. Management Studies 41. Planning Review 42. Long Range Planning 43. International Indigenous Journal of Entrepreneurship

Advancement, Strategy, & Education

44. Small Business and Enterprise Development 45. Journal of Enterprising Culture 46. Asian Journal of Business & Entrepreneurship 47. International Journal of Commerce and Management 48. Public Personnel Management 49. Business Journal for Entrepreneurs Quarterly 50. Central Business Journal

*Denotes that journal is on both lists.

Table 2 shows the original Bauer School of Business (2009) list of 61 management journals by tier with a cross-comparison of the two other lists of top management journals from Yuyuenyongwatana and Carraher (2008) and Harris (2008). This cross-comparison lends face validity that scholarly researchers in the field of management perceive these as top journals. Therefore, several of the management journals appeared on two of the three lists; some appeared on all three lists. I considered the three lists of journals, therefore, corroborated on their face value as top journals. I selected 21 management journals for comparison purposes and used the Bauer list to place them into respective tiers. The only exception was the Journal of Business Strategies, not on the original Bauer list, but I assigned it to the tier 4 group.

TABLE 2 A CROSS-COMPARISON OF THREE INDEPENDENT LISTS OF TOP MANAGEMENT

JOURNALS

List Aa

Bauer Tiers

List Bb

List Cc

1. Academy of Management Journal* 1 y y 2. Academy of Management Review* 1 y y 3. Administrative Science Quarterly* 1 y y 4. Strategic Management Journal* 1 y y 5. Journal of International Business Studies# 2 y 6. Journal of Management* 2 y y 7. Journal of Management Studies* 2 y y 8. Leadership Quarterly# 2 y 9. Personnel Psychology 2 10. Academy of Management Perspectives* 3 y y 11. Corporate Governance 3 12. Human Relations 3 13. IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management# 3 y 14. International Journal of Human Resource Management# 3 y 15. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology 3


16. Journal of Managerial Issues # 3 y 17. Journal of Organizational Behavior# 3 y 18. Organizational Dynamics 3 y 19. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin 3 20. Academy of Management Learning and Education# 4 y 21. Advances in Strategic Management 4 22. Asia Pacific Journal of Management 4 23. British Journal of Management 4 24. Business and Society 4 25. California Management Review* 4 y y 26. Decision Sciences Journal of Innovative Education 4 27. Group and Organization Studies 4 28. Human Performance 4 29. Human Resources Management# 4 y 30. Human Resource Management Review 4 31. International Business Review 4 32. International Journal of Innovation and Technology Management 4 33. International Journal of Innovation Management 4 34. International Journal of Management Reviews# 4 y 35. Journal of Applied Behavioral Science 4 36. Journal of Applied Social Psychology 4 37. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making 4 38. Journal of Business Ethics 4 39. Journal of Business Strategy (different than Journal of Business Strategies) 4 y 40. Journal of Business Venturing 4 41. Journal of Conflict Resolution 4 42. Journal of Education for Business 4 43. Journal of Engineering & Technology Management 4 44. Journal of High Technology Management Research 4 45. Journal of International Management 4 46. Journal of Management Education 4 47. Journal of Small Business Management 4 48. Journal of Vocational Behavior 4 49. Journal of World Business 4 50. Law and Human Behavior 4 51. Long Range Planning 4 52. Management and Organization Review 4 53. Management International Review 4 54. Management Learning 4 y 55. Organization Studies# 4 y 56. Public Personnel Management* 4 y 57. Research Policy 4 58. Research-Technology Management 4 59. Sex Roles 4 60. Thunderbird International Business Review 4 61. World at Work Journal 4

a. Source for List A: University of Houston’s Bauer College of Business for 2009. b. Source for List B: Yuyuenyongwatana, R. P., & Carraher, S. M. (2008). c. Source: for List C: Harris (2008). *Denotes a journal that appears in all three lists; #Denotes a journal that appears on two lists.

Google Scholar allows for a citation search simply by typing in the journal title in the search engine. I collected all the data on May 26, 2013 from a Google Scholar citation search, and recorded the information from the first two pages of the search results of each journal in an Excel spread sheet. I coded for publication date, period of publication, number of citations of an article, tier, and number of authors. I recorded the first 20 articles that appeared in the first two pages of the Google Scholar citations search results for each of the 21 management journals. It took a couple of days to input the coded data into an


Excel file. I later exported the file with 420 rows of data to SPSS 18.0 for statistical analysis. The frequency and percent of independent variables (publication period, tier, and number of authors) are shown in Table 3.

TABLE 3

FREQUENCY AND PERCENTS OF DEMOGRAPHIC VARIABLES

Variables Frequency Percent Cumulative Percent Journal Tiers 1st 80 19.0 19.0

2nd 80 19.0 38.1 3rd 120 28.6 66.7 4th 140 33.3 100.0 Total 420 100.0

Publication Period 1989 and before 77 18.3 18.3 1990 to 1999 165 39.3 57.6 2000 and after 178 42.4 100.0 Total 420 100.0

Authors One 157 37.4 37.4 Two 180 42.9 80.2 Three or more 83 19.8 100.0 Total 420 100.0

The publication period was determined based on an article being published 1989 and before, 1990 to 1999, and 2000 and after. Figure 1 shows a histogram of the pattern of the actual publication dates for all 420 articles, ranging from 1960 to 2012.The actual publication dates for the 420 articles appears to be a pretty good normal distribution of data. This gives me confidence in the randomness of the data. There were a very small number of articles that were published in 1960’s and 1970’s that I combined into the 1989 and before group to ensure there were adequate cell sizes for data analysis purposes. Research Hypotheses

To further investigate the differences in independent variables and differences in the dependent variable, the following three null hypotheses were written and tested.

H1: Means for citations do not differ among the publication periods of 1989 and before, 1990 to 1999, and 2000 and after. H2: Means for citations do not differ among the management journal tiers of 1st, 2nd, 3rd, and 4th. H3: Means for the magnitude of citations increases or decreases do not differ among management journal tiers of 1st, 2nd, 3rd, and 4th regardless of the publication periods of 1989 and before, 1990 to 1999, and 2000 and after.


FIGURE 1 PUBLICATION DATES FOR 420ARTICLES AND FREQUENCY, 1960 TO 2012

TWO-WAY ANOVA RESULTS

I used a two-way analysis of variance with a 4 x 3 factorial design to compare the means of 420 articles that were published in 21 reputable management journals—20 articles per journal. The independent variables were 1st, 2nd, 3rd, and 4th tier management journals and the three publication periods of 1989 and before, 1990 to 1999 and 2000 and after. The dependent variable was the number of citations for each of the 420 articles. There were 617, 299 total citations. I tested for main effects and interaction effects. The means and standards deviations for the three publication periods, the four tiers and the Test of Between-Subjects Effects are shown in Table 4. Estimated Marginal Means for Period, Tier, and Period * Tier are presented in Tables A, B and C in the Appendix.

I rejected Hypothesis1: Means for citations differ among the publication periods of 1989 and before, 1990 to 1999, and 2000 and after, with F(2, 408), 3.637, p= .027. The LSD Post-Hoc tests show a negative mean difference of -943.128 between publication periods 2000 and after and 1989 and before (P= .009); it shows a negative mean difference of -629.298 between periods 2000 and after and1990-1999 (p= .041). Partial Eta Squared accounted for a small effect size, meaning publication period accounted for only 1.8 percent of the variance in citations. Clearly technology is the best explanation for the fact that more articles were published for the more recent publication periods. Personal computers, statistical software packages, subscriptions to library databases that include PDF full-text research articles have all contributed to this difference. The speed in which researchers can publish their articles has increased exponentially because of computing technologies. It does not explain why more citations occur in the period when fewer articles were published.

I rejected Hypothesis2: Means for citations differ among the management journal tiers of 1st, 2nd, 3rd, and 4th, with F(3, 408 ), 37.812, p= .000. Given that tiers are already pre-established, based on citation differences this finding is not unexpected. The LSD Post-Hoc test reveals all the mean differences are significant, with a p= .000 on all comparisons of tiers 2, 3, and 4 to tier 1which shows a continual decline in citations as journals decline in tiers. Mean differences were -2823.626, -3834.438, and -3994.422,


respectively. Partial Eta Squared accounted for a large effect size, meaning tier accounted for 21.8 percent of the variance in citations when using the Cohen (1988) rule that .01 ~ small, .06 ~ medium and .14 ~ large. This finding substantiates the literature in this regard; the lower the journal tier significantly fewer is the citations.

I did not reject Hypothesis3: Means for the magnitude of citations decreases do not differ among management journal tiers of 1st , 2nd , 3rd , and 4th regardless of the publication periods of 1989 and before, 1990 to 1999, and 2000 and after, with F(6, 408), 0.519, p= .794. This is surprising given the fact 1st tier management journals have published the most super-cited articles. Although, 1st tier journals have higher means across the three publication periods they are not statistically different across the three publication periods. The magnitude of the interaction effect was non-significant. The 1st tier journals’ citations did not increase significantly more than 2nd, 3rd, and 4th tiers nor did citations decrease significantly less than 2nd, 3rd, and 4th tiers. In fact, all four tiers decreased in citations over the three publication periods.

TABLE 4

UNIVARIATE ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE WITH MEANS AND STD. DEVIATIONS Period Tier Mean Std. Deviation Articles

1989 and before 1 5123.88 4208.125 26 2 2176.77 1752.328 13 3 1081.71 1007.655 21

4 493.82 318.689 17

Total 2501.69 3229.211 77 1990 to 1999 1 4561.67 3336.540 48

2 1885.13 4466.102 40 3 603.58 449.814 31 4 570.50 524.729 46

Total 2056.48 3302.824 165 2000 and after 1 3704.00 1562.518 6

2 856.78 475.000 27 3 200.94 271.564 68 4 341.96 348.852 77

Total 479.51 771.030 178 Total 1 4680.06 3539.386 80

2 1585.45 3266.796 80 3 459.09 612.462 120 4 435.49 422.687 140

Total 1469.76 2675.843 420 Dependent Variable: Citations Tests of Between-Subjects Effects Source Type III Sum of

Squares df Mean Square F Sig. Partial Eta Squared

Corrected Model 1.147E9 11 1.043E8 22.950 .000 .382 Intercept 8.437E8 1 8.437E8 185.727 .000 .313 Period 3.304E7 2 1.652E7 3.637 *.027 .018 Tier 5.153E8 3 1.718E8 37.812 ***.000 .218 Period * Tier 1.414E7 6 2356259.282 .519 .794 .008 Error 1.853E9 408 4542490.204 Total 3.907E9 420 Corrected Total 3.000E9 419 *Denotes p< .05; ***Denotes p< .001.


DISCUSSION AND SUMMARY

What is the most logical explanation for the fact that fewer articles were published in the period of 1989 and before (77 articles, citations mean= 2219), compared to 1990-1999 (165 articles, citations mean= 1905) and 2000 and after (178 articles, citations mean= 1276) but there were more citations in the earlier period? Why is the citations trend downward for all four of the management journals tiers across the three publication periods? The most logical explanation is that there were more super-cited articles published in the earlier period than in the more recent periods. I will refer to this phenomenon hereafter as the Celebrity Researcher Effect.

The literature review revealed that various studies have been conducted regarding journal rankings, journal quality and citations of articles published by journals included on lists of top management journals. This study’s contribution to the literature is derived from a random, and pretty good representative sample of 21 management journals citations compared against pre-established tiers and three publication periods for 420 articles. The plot shown in Figure 2 is the best way to understand the dynamics of my findings; the 4x3 factorial design is plotted by tier (1= first, 2= second, 3= third, and 4= fourth) and publication period (8= 1989 and before, 9= 1990 to 1999, and 10= 2000 and after) and makes it clear as to why the interaction effect was non-significant, with a p = .794. There is a downward trend in the citations patterns for all four tiers across the three publication periods. None of the tiers pull significantly in the opposite direction of any of the other journal tiers. This is telling.

I surmise that the Celebrity Researcher Effect is negated over time. Thus, super-cited articles have no significant effect in the interaction because they decline in popularity and utility in theory building as knowledge develops. Moreover, celebrity researchers producing articles of this quality decline over time as they retire. And even though older articles have more time to be cited than newer articles, super-cited articles eventually exhaust their applicability to modern approaches. Popularity of the super-cited articles fade, even when there is perfunctory citations of such articles, because of knowledge development. My findings support the conclusion that articles become obsolete and decline in the rate of citations of an article over time (Mingers & Burrell, 2006).

FIGURE 2 PROFILE PLOTS FOR TIER * PUBLICATION PERIOD


Table 5 shows the 21 management journals that I ranked by citations means. Table 5 also includes the original Bauer School of Business (2009) management journals tiers. Even though the Levene’s Test of Equality of Error Variance was significant (p = .000), I am not concerned about a Type I error, because the p-value for tier was significant well below p< .000 on tiers. Also, the sampling frame for publication dates of the 420 articles is fixed; fewer articles were published in the period of 1989 and before than in the periods of 1990-1999 and 2000 and after, but more citations occurred in the earlier period.

Despite this fact, my findings appear to show a non-significant downward trend of the magnitude of decreases in citations of all four tiers of management journals across three publication periods. This is why tiers are not reflective of the citation means that I ascertained in this study. For example, Organization studies has a mean of 899.75 citations, and is ranked 10th by me but has a Bauer rating of 4th tier, and is 33/50 on List Bb. California Management Review has a mean of 651.45 citations, and is ranked 12th by me, but has a Bauer rating of 4th tier; Harris (2008) gave it a “B” rating. Each of these journals’ means is well above the means for 3rd and 4th tier as seen in Table 5. Also, super-cited articles seem to inflate the means for some journals, especially when journal comparisons don’t account for publication period.

TABLE 5 MANAGEMENT JOURNALS RANKED BY MEANS WITH STD. DEVIATION

Management Journal List by Ranked by Means Rank Means Articles Std. Deviation

Academy of Management Review 1 5876.75 20 3917.882 Strategic Management Journal 2 5468.85 20 3848.251 Administrative Science Quarterly 3 4920.85 20 3754.938 Journal of Management 4 3143.90 20 6199.954 Academy of Management Journal 5 2453.80 20 622.994 Journal of International Business Studies 6 1351.70 20 1402.160 Journal of Organizational Behavior 7 1018.10 20 754.756 Journal of Management Studies 8 980.75 20 365.125 Organizational Dynamics 9 971.05 20 756.540 Organization Studies 10 899.75 20 558.134 Leadership Quarterly 11 865.45 20 537.925 California Management Review 12 651.45 20 504.782 IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management 13 461.75 20 414.122 Human Resources Management 14 452.00 20 284.321 Academy of Management Learning and Education 15 352.25 20 400.083 International Journal of Management Reviews 16 348.30 20 182.195 Management Learning 17 254.90 20 88.926 Academy of Management Perspectives 18 167.70 20 69.744 International Journal of Human Resource Management 19 134.15 20 74.213 Journal of Business Strategies 20 89.80 20 84.041 Journal of Managerial Issues 21 1.80 20 2.931

Total 1469.76 420 2675.843 Tiers Means Articles Std. Deviation 1ST 4680.06 80 3539.386 2nd 1585.45 80 3266.796 3rd 459.09 120 612.462 4th 435.49 140 422.687

Total 1469.76 420 2675.843

Most of the super-cited articles appeared as first article on the first page of the Google Scholar search. I can argue a normal distribution of the sample and the fact that I used the first 20 articles in a Google Scholar search for each of the 21 management journals is a fair comparison. The 420 articles were normally distributed in the results pages (See Figure 1). Table 6 shows 15 of these super-cited seminal


articles, written by celebrity researchers, and they are a competitive advantage for these journals when citations are the measure of influence. I also found that few authors accounted for the bulk of citations in this study which is consistent with Lindquist and Smith (2009). Several of the celebrity researchers’ citations in this study are many times above the population mean of 1469.

Celebrity researcher articles represent an enormous advantage for 1st tier journals, especially in the earlier period, which creates an overwhelming disadvantage for the lower tier management journals to overcome. Table 6 shows Kathleen M. Eisenhardt appears six times and has a total of 41,592 citations and four of her articles are published in Bauer 1st tier journals. Kathleen M. Eisenhardt is currently Professor of Strategy and Organization at Stanford University. Therefore, celebrity researchers’ articles are extremely important in citation counts because citations of the celebrity researcher articles can become perfunctory in nature. Authors sometime cite an article for its popularity and not necessarily because the article makes any real or germane addition to an author’s research. When an article is cited often it is likely to be cited more often (MacDonald & Kam, 2008; Baird & Oppenheim, 1994; Oppenheim, 1996). When citations are the measure of a management journal’s influence on theory building 1st tier journals have an enormous advantage. The citations momentum 1st tier management journals have over lower tier journals creates an overwhelming disadvantage for the lower tier journals hoping to someday be classified as 1st tier journals, judged by their citations count. Table 6 shows a search of the 420 articles used in this study revealed that 15 articles written by celebrity researchers (3.57%) accounted for 18.96% of the total citations. Most of these are two or three standard deviations above the mean citations for their respective tiers, and many times larger than the population mean. The citations mean for these 15 super-cited articles was 7802. Recall the population citations mean for 420 articles was 1469. The citations mean for the 405 articles without the super-cited articles was 1235.

Management journal tiers are statistically the same across the three publication periods. And time diminishes the magnitude of the Celebrity Researcher Effect. Differences across the four management journal tiers diminish over time. The large standard deviations for some of the management journals reveal that there are a lot of super-cited articles among some journals and explains why tiers differed at such a high level of significance. Based on the examination of the Google Scholar citations search results for 20 articles each from 21 management journals, popularity of super-cited articles appears to decline over time. It does, however, make sense that older articles are cited more often than newer articles. Nevertheless, publication period diminishes the influence of The Celebrity Researcher Effect across the four tiers. It is my opinion that when time is accounted for it makes no sense to place the 21 management journals into tiers because they are statistically equal in terms of the magnitude of decreases in citations of the articles they have published. Citations decline in the same pattern for all the tiers and no tier is pulling in the opposite direction (increasing while others decrease, vice versa) of any of the others.


TABLE 6 CELEBRITY RESEARCHERS’ TOTAL CITATIONS AS A PERCENT OF ALL CITATIONS

Celebrity Researchers’ Total Citations = 117025

Celebrity Researchers’ Percent of All Citations= 117025/617299 * 100 = 18.96% Celebrity Researchers’ Percent of All Papers = 15/420 papers * 100 = 3.57%

Celebrity Researchers’ Citations Mean = 117025/15 = 7802 Building theories from case study research KM Eisenhardt - Academy of management review, 1989 - JSTOR Cited by 21269

Social capital, intellectual capital, and the organizational advantage J Nahapiet, S Ghoshal - Academy of management review, 1998 - JSTOR Cited by 8297

Absorptive capacity: a new perspective on learning and innovation WM Cohen, DA Levinthal - Administrative science quarterly, 1990 - JSTOR Cited by 19420

Agency theory: An assessment and review KM Eisenhardt - Academy of management review, 1989 - JSTOR Cited by 5950

Social capital and value creation: The role of intrafirm networks W Tsai, S Ghoshal - Academy of management Journal, 1998 - JSTOR Cited by 3091

The art of continuous change: Linking complexity theory and time-paced evolution in relentlessly shifting organizations SL Brown, KM Eisenhardt - Administrative science quarterly, 1997 - JSTOR Cited by 2725

Theory building from cases: Opportunities and challenges. KM Eisenhardt, ME Graebner - Academy of management journal, 2007 - amj.aom.org Cited by 2666

Bad Management Theories Are Destroying Good Management Practices. S Ghoshal - Academy of Management Learning & Education, 2005 - amle.aom.org Cited by 1724

The internationalization of the firm—four swedish cases 1 J Johanson, F Wiedersheim‐Paul - Journal of management …, 1975 - Wiley Online Library Cited by 2252

Making fast strategic decisions in high-velocity environments KM Eisenhardt - Academy of Management journal, 1989 - JSTOR Cited by 2539

The resource-based view of the firm: Ten years after 1991 J Barney, M Wright, DJ Ketchen - Journal of management, 2001 - jom.sagepub.com Cited by 1304

The myopia of learning DA Levinthal, JG March - Strategic management journal, 1993 - Wiley Online Library Cited by 4091

Dynamic capabilities: what are they? KM Eisenhardt, JA Martin - Strategic management journal, 2000 - noppa.aalto.fi Cited by 6443

Firm resources and sustained competitive advantage J Barney - Journal of management, 1991 - jom.sagepub.com Cited by 29140

The internationalization process of the firm-a model of knowledge development and increasing foreign market commitments J Johanson, JE Vahlne - Journal of international business studies, 1977 - JSTOR Cited by 6114

KM Eisenhardt = 41592 or 41592/617299 * 100 = 6.74%

Ghoshal = 13112 or 13112/617299 * 100 = 2.12%

J Johanson = 8366 or 8366 /617299 * 100 = 1.36%

J. Barney = 30444 or 30444/617299 * 100 = 4.93%

DA Levinthal = 23511 or 23511/617299 * 100 = 3.81%

REFERENCES Azar, O. H., & Brock, D. M. (2008). A citation-based ranking of strategic management journals. Journal of Economics & Management Strategy, 17 (3), 781-802. Baird, L., & Oppenheim, C. (1994). Do citations matter? Journal of Information Science, 20 (1), 2-15. Bell, R.L. (2012). An empirical investigation of communication content in reputable management journals. Business Studies Journal-Special Issue, 4 (1), 21-44.


Bell, R.L. (2010). The relative frequency of faculty's publications: A content analysis of refereed business journals. Academy of Educational Leadership Journal, 14 (2), 59-84. Bell, R.L., & Chong, H.G. (2010). A caste and class among the relative frequency of faculty's publications: A content analysis of refereed business journals. Journal of Leadership, Accountability and Ethics, 8 (1), 65-89. Caligiuri, P. M. (1999). The ranking of scholarly journals in international human resource management. International Journal of Human Resource Management, 10 (3), 515-519. Cheng, C. H., Kumar, A., Motwani, J. G., Reisman, A., & Madan, M. S. (1999). A citation analysis of the technology innovation management journals. IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management, 46(1), 4-13. Chong, H.G., & Bell, R.L. (2012). Does hierarchy exist among the refereed accounting journals? International Journal of Business and Public Administration, 9 (3), 60-77. Chow, C. W., Haddad, K., Singh, G., & Wu, A. (2007). On using journal rank to proxy an article’s contribution or value. Issues in Accounting Education, 22 (3), 411-427. Cohen J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences. 2nd ed. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. DuBois, F. L., & Reeb, D. (2000). Ranking the international business journals. Journal of International Business Studies, 31 (4), 689-704. Durand, D. E. (1974). Citation count analysis of behavioral science journals in influential management literature. Academy of Management Journal (Pre-1986), 17 (3), 579-579. Geary, J., Marriott, L., & Rowlinson, M. (2004). Journal rankings in business and management and the 2001 Research Assessment Exercise in the UK. British Journal of Management, 15 (2), 95-141. Harris, C. (2008). Ranking the Management Journals. Journal of Scholarly Publishing, 39 (4), 373-409. Harzing, A. W., & van der Wal, R. (2009). A Google Scholar h‐index for journals: An alternative metric to measure journal impact in economics and business. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 60 (1), 41-46. Johnson, J. L., & Podsakoff, P. M. (1994). Journal influence in the field of management: an analysis using salancik's index in a dependency network. Academy of Management Journal, 37 (5), 1392-1407. Leung, K. (2007). The glory and tyranny of citation impact: An East Asian perspective. Academy of Management Journal, 50 (3), 510. Li, E. Y., & Parker, M. (2013). Citation patterns in organization and management journals: Margins and centres. Organization, 20 (2), 299-322. Lindquist, T. M., & Smith, G. (2009). Journal of management accounting research: Content and citation analysis of the first 20 years. Journal of Management Accounting Research, 21, 249-292.


Linton, J. D., & Thongpapanl, N. (2004). PERSPECTIVE: Ranking the Technology Innovation Management Journals. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 21 (2), 123-139. Macdonald, S., & Kam, J. (2008). Quality journals and gamesmanship in management studies. Management Research News, 31 (8), 595-606. Mingers, J., & Burrell, Q. L. (2006). Modeling citation behavior in management science journals. Information Processing & Management, 42 (6), 1451-1464. Mingers, J., & Harzing, A. (2007). Ranking journals in business and management: A statistical analysis of the Harzing data set. European Journal of Information Systems, 16 (4), 303-316. Mingers, J., & Xu, F. (2010). The drivers of citations in management science journals. European Journal of Operational Research, 205 (2), 422-430. Oppenheim, C. (1996) Do citations count? Citation indexing and the Research Assessment Exercise (RAE). Serials, 9 (2), 155-161. Podsakoff, P. M., Mackenzie, S. B., Bachrach, D. G., & Podsakoff, N. P. (2005). The influence of management journals in the 1980s and 1990s. Strategic Management Journal, 26 (5), 473-488. Raut, T., Sahu, S., & Ganguly, S. (2008). Strategic Management Journal: a citations study. Annals of Library & Information Studies, 55 (1), 8. Smith, S. D. (2004). Is an article in a top journal a top article? Financial Management, 33 (4), 133-150. Starbuck, W. H. (2005). How much better are the most-prestigious journals? The statistics of academic publication. Organization Science, 16 (2), 180-200. Tahai, A., & Meyer, M. J. (1999). A revealed preference study of management journals’ direct influences. Strategic Management Journal, 20 (3), 279-296. Thongpapanl, N. (2012). The changing landscape of technology and innovation management: An updated ranking of journals in the field. Technovation, 32 (5), 257-271. Vokurka, R. J. (1996). The relative importance of journals used in operations management research - A citation analysis. Journal of Operations Management, 14 (4), 345-355. Yuyuenyongwatana, R. P., & Carraher, S. M. (2008). Academic journal ranking: Important to strategic management and general management researchers?. Journal of Business Strategies, 25 (2), 1-8.


APPENDIX Estimated Marginal Means Table A: Period

Estimates

Dependent Variable:Citations Period

Mean Std. Error 95% Confidence Interval

Lower Bound Upper Bound

dimension1 8 2219.048 250.954 1725.723 2712.372 9 1905.218 168.352 1574.272 2236.164 10 1275.920 256.310 772.067 1779.773

Pairwise Comparisons

Dependent Variable:Citations (I) Period (J) Period

Mean Difference (I-J) Std. Error Sig.a

95% Confidence Interval for Differencea


dimension1

8 dimension2

9 313.830 302.193 .300 -280.219 907.879 10 943.128* 358.710 .009 237.978 1648.278

9 dimension2

8 -313.830 302.193 .300 -907.879 280.219 10 629.298* 306.655 .041 26.477 1232.119

10 dimension2

8 -943.128* 358.710 .009 -1648.278 -237.978 9 -629.298* 306.655 .041 -1232.119 -26.477

Based on estimated marginal means a. Adjustment for multiple comparisons: Least Significant Difference (equivalent to no adjustments). *. The mean difference is significant at the .05 level. Note: 8= 1989 and before, 9= 1990 to 1999, and 10= 2000 and after.

Univariate Tests Dependent Variable:Citations

Sum of Squares df Mean Square F Sig. Partial Eta Squared Contrast 3.304E7 2 1.652E7 3.637 .027 .018 Error 1.853E9 408 4542490.204 The F tests the effect of Period. This test is based on the linearly independent pairwise comparisons among the estimated marginal means.


Table B: Tier

Estimates Dependent Variable:Citations Tier


Lower Bound Upper Bound 1st 4463.184 337.709 3799.316 5127.051 2nd 1639.557 264.832 1118.951 2160.163 3rd 628.745 218.490 199.238 1058.253 4th 468.762 217.294 41.607 895.916

Pairwise Comparisons Dependent Variable:Citations (I) Tier (J) Tier

Mean Difference (I-J) Std. Error Sig.a 95% Confidence Interval for Differencea Lower Bound Upper Bound

dimension1

1 dimension2

2 2823.626* 429.166 .000 1979.973 3667.279 3 3834.438* 402.226 .000 3043.745 4625.132 4 3994.422* 401.577 .000 3205.004 4783.840

2 dimension2

1 -2823.626* 429.166 .000 -3667.279 -1979.973 3 1010.812* 343.328 .003 335.899 1685.725 4 1170.796* 342.568 .001 497.378 1844.214

3 dimension2

1 -3834.438* 402.226 .000 -4625.132 -3043.745 2 -1010.812* 343.328 .003 -1685.725 -335.899 4 159.984 308.147 .604 -445.770 765.738

4 dimension2

1 -3994.422* 401.577 .000 -4783.840 -3205.004 2 -1170.796* 342.568 .001 -1844.214 -497.378 3 -159.984 308.147 .604 -765.738 445.770

Based on estimated marginal means *. The mean difference is significant at the .05 level. a. Adjustment for multiple comparisons: Least Significant Difference (equivalent to no adjustments).

Univariate Tests Dependent Variable:Citations

Sum of Squares df Mean Square F Sig. Partial Eta Squared Contrast 5.153E8 3 1.718E8 37.812 .000 .218 Error 1.853E9 408 4542490.204 The F tests the effect of Tier. This test is based on the linearly independent pairwise comparisons among the estimated marginal means.


Table C: Period * Tier Dependent Variable:Citations Period Tier



dimension1

8 1 5123.885 417.985 4302.212 5945.557 2 2176.769 591.120 1014.749 3338.789 3 1081.714 465.090 167.442 1995.987 4 493.824 516.919 -522.334 1509.981

9 1 4561.667 307.628 3956.932 5166.401 2 1885.125 336.990 1222.672 2547.578 3 603.581 382.795 -148.916 1356.077 4 570.500 314.245 -47.241 1188.241

10 1 3704.000 870.104 1993.553 5414.447 2 856.778 410.171 50.465 1663.090 3 200.941 258.460 -307.137 709.020 4 341.961 242.886 -135.502 819.424

Post Hoc Tests Period

Multiple Comparisons Citations LSD (I) Period (J) Period Mean Difference

(I-J) Std. Error Sig. 95% Confidence Interval


dimension2

8 dimension3

9 445.21 294.149 .131 -133.03 1023.45 10 2022.18* 290.711 .000 1450.70 2593.66

9 dimension3

8 -445.21 294.149 .131 -1023.45 133.03 10 1576.97* 230.326 .000 1124.20 2029.75

10 dimension3

8 -2022.18* 290.711 .000 -2593.66 -1450.70 9 -1576.97* 230.326 .000 -2029.75 -1124.20

Based on observed means. The error term is Mean Square(Error) = 4542490.204. *. The mean difference is significant at the .05 level. Note: 8= 1989 and before, 9= 1990 to 1999, and 10= 2000 and after.


Tier

Multiple Comparisons Citations LSD (I) Tier (J) Tier Mean Difference

(I-J) Std. Error Sig. 95% Confidence Interval


dimension2

1 dimension3

2 3094.61* 336.990 .000 2432.16 3757.07 3 4220.97* 307.628 .000 3616.24 4825.71 4 4244.57* 298.710 .000 3657.37 4831.77

2 dimension3

1 -3094.61* 336.990 .000 -3757.07 -2432.16 3 1126.36* 307.628 .000 521.62 1731.09 4 1149.96* 298.710 .000 562.75 1737.16

3 dimension3

1 -4220.97* 307.628 .000 -4825.71 -3616.24 2 -1126.36* 307.628 .000 -1731.09 -521.62 4 23.60 265.142 .929 -497.62 544.81

4 dimension3

1 -4244.57* 298.710 .000 -4831.77 -3657.37 2 -1149.96* 298.710 .000 -1737.16 -562.75 3 -23.60 265.142 .929 -544.81 497.62

Based on observed means. The error term is Mean Square(Error) = 4542490.204. *. The mean difference is significant at the .05 level.


Copyright of Journal of Leadership, Accountability & Ethics is the property of NorthAmerican Business Press Inc. and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sitesor posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However,users may print, download, or email articles for individual use.

Documents

Management Journals and the Celebrity Researcher Effect on Tiers